Gooch v. State, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156

Movant Gary Gooch was charged with first-degree arson in a Springfield duplex, alleged to have knowingly damaged the structure by starting a fire with a person present.
At the plea hearing, the court did not read the Information aloud and outlined a plea agreement for twenty years with suspended execution and five years of probation; Movant, who claimed inability to read or write, stated he understood after review with counsel.
Movant admitted discussing the charging document with defense counsel, and the Information allegedly contained all elements; the court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced Movant per the plea agreement.
Movant violated probation, which was revoked; he subsequently filed a timely pro se Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, later amended to raise six claims including insufficient factual basis and ineffective plea counsel.
The motion court granted the first and third claims, set aside the conviction and sentence, denied others, and the State appealed; the appellate standard is reviewing for clear error.
On review, the court concluded the State’s first issue (insufficient factual basis) was merited to some extent, but ultimately held the plea was knowing and voluntary, and the second issue (ineffective plea counsel) warranted reversal of the motion court’s findings on that point.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Insufficient factual basis for guilty plea	Movant asserted lack of sufficient facts to support knowingly setting the fire	State argued the record, including circumstantial evidence, established a basis for the plea	Plea was knowing and voluntary; no insufficient factual basis
Ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failure to investigate	Movant claimed plea counsel did not uncover weaknesses in the State's case	State argued movant failed to prove what information counsel should have found or how it would have changed the outcome	Motion court clearly erred; plea counsel not ineffective

Simmons v. State, 100 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. 2003) (guilty plea generally waives complaints about trial counsel's failure to investigate)
McVay v. State, 12 S.W.3d 370 (Mo. App. 2000) (ineffective-assistance standard requires specific missing information and potential defense impact)
Jenkins v. State, 9 S.W.3d 705 (Mo. App. 1999) (movant must prove preponderance of evidence for post-conviction claims)
Price v. State, 137 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. App. 2004) (factual basis may be drawn from the record as a whole)
Martin v. State, 187 S.W.3d 335 (Mo. App. 2006) (factual basis need not come solely from plea proceedings)
Wagoner v. State, 240 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. App. 2007) (focus on movant's understanding of the charge rather than ritualistic compliance)
Geren v. State, 473 S.W.2d 704 (Mo. Banc. 1971) (plea knowingness and voluntariness waiver of nonjurisdictional infirmities)
Sanford v. State, 331 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. App. 2011) (information provided the elements of the charged offense)
Chipman v. State, 274 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. App. 2008) (no strict procedure required to establish factual basis)
State v. Shafer, 969 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. Banc. 1998) (voluntariness assessments hinge on free will and coercion analyses)
Pulliam v. State, 480 S.W.2d 896 (Mo. 1972) (plea benefits do not automatically render coercion)
Toler v. State, 542 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. App. 1976) (factors in voluntariness of plea)
Pruitt v. Sanford, not applicable (not cited) (not applicable)